Article 5 of the MDIA Act creates the Malta Digital Innovation Authority (the Authority)—a body whose purpose is to “address the development in Malta of all innovative technology arrangements and innovative technology services” (MDIA Act art. 6) in order to “seek the development of the innovative technology sector in Malta through proper recognition and regulation of relevant innovative technology arrangements and related services” (id. art. 3). The MDIA Act grants the Authority extensive powers to recognize applicants that use “innovative technology arrangements” (defined in article 2 as “intrinsic elements including software, codes, computer protocols and other architectures which are used in the context of DLT, smart contracts and related applications”); investigate applicants that they suspect of not meeting the “quality and integrity standards required … for purposes of recognition or compliance” with the law (id. art. 39); and sanction those who do not comply with a fine of up to €12,000 (about US$14,017) or imprisonment for up to three months, or both (id. art. 40(5)).

ITAS Act

The ITAS Act outlines the different methods by which the Authority can recognize “innovative technology arrangements and innovative technology services.” (ITAS Act art. 3(2).) The Authority can certify the qualities, features, attributes, behaviors, or aspects of a particular arrangement as fit for a particular purpose or purposes (id. art. 7(1)) and then issue a certificate that “shall state the details of how the innovative technology arrangement is identified, including any public key or a brand name, and the Certificate shall be given a unique number for purposes of identification” (id. art. 7(6)). There are further safeguards as to the quality of the service provided by the particular arrangements, including a requirement to have a registered technical administrator, who can prove to the Authority that the arrangements can satisfy the service listed on the certificate, in office at all times. (Id. art. 8(4)(c).)

VFA Act

The VFA Act regulates what have become known in wider circles as Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)—the initial circulating of a cryptographic digital medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value (a token, coin, etc.) by an issuer, usually in exchange for fiat currency in exchange. The VFA Act mandates that no issuer can make an ICO without first publishing a white paper that has been signed by every member of the issuer’s Board of Administration (VFA Act art. 3) and contains “information which, according to the particular nature of the issuer and of the virtual financial assets offered to the public, is necessary to enable investors to make an informed assessment of the prospects of the issuer, the proposed project and of the features of the virtual financial asset” (id. sched. 1).

Furthermore, that information must be presented in “an easily analysable and comprehensible form.” (Id.) The white paper must also include a warning that the “offering of virtual financial assets does not constitute an offer or solicitation to sell financial instruments.” (Id.) Finally, the white paper must be approved by the registered VFA agent (id. art. 3(3)), who must be appointed and be “at all times in place” with the issuer in order to ensure compliance with the law (id. art. 7(1)).

Conclusion

In parallel, the three new pieces of legislation look to provide a solid regulatory and legislative framework for the use of blockchain and DLT technologies—allowing service providers to be recognized by the government as being legitimately innovative in return for increased public confidence in the accountability of this rapidly growing and cutting-edge sector.

Prepared by Ben Hills, Law Library intern, under the supervision of Clare Feikert-Ahalt, Senior Foreign Law Specialist.

]]>European Union: Committee Draft of EU Copyright Directive Rejected by European Parliamenthttp://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/european-union-eu-copyright-directive-rejected-by-european-parliament/
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 13:30:34 +0000http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/?post_type=glm_article&p=14289(Aug. 31, 2018) On July 5, 2018, the European Parliament voted to halt the passage of the proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (the Directive), voting instead to reopen debate on the provisions by a margin of 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstentions. (Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Eur. Parl. Doc. COM(2016) 593 final, 2016/0280(COD) (2016), EUR-Lex website; Results of Votes, Annex, Eur. Parl. Doc. P8_­PV(2018)07-05(VOT)_EN, European Parliament website.)

In accordance with the July vote, the Directive has been slated for renewed debate before the European Parliament and a vote on September 12, 2018. (Draft Agenda: Sittings of 10/09/2018 – 13/09/2018, Eur. Parl. Doc., Plenary Sittings Directorate (Aug. 7, 2018).)

Article 11 of the Directive provides “publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications”—namely the right to limit or prevent reproduction of a given work by another and the right to authorize or prevent public access to a given work. (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society arts. 2 & 3(2), 2001 O.J. (L 167) 10.) However, such a provision, according to European Parliament Member Julia Reda, would effectively outlaw news aggregate websites that provide links to journalistic content created by others, such as Google News, Huffington Post, and Facebook News Feed. In order to link to such news stories, the linker would have to seek out every author of every linked article and receive permission to link to each individual story, which would limit the ability to effectively disseminate or fact check those stories. (Julia Reda, Extra Copyright for News Sites (“Link Tax”), JULIA REDA (last visited Aug. 30, 2018).)

Article 13 provides that

[i]nformation society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.

This article would require, for example, a photograph-sharing website to take appropriate and proportionate action to remove an upload of a copy of an artist’s photograph that one of its users has uploaded and is allowing an audience to access for free. (Julia Reda, Censorship Machines (Article 13), JULIA REDA (last visited Aug. 30, 2018).) It would also require that website to have an appropriate system that recognizes anyone but the original rightsholder who attempts to upload that picture, and any such uploads must be shut down preemptively to prevent the abuse of intellectual property. Article 13 suggests that an “appropriate and proportionate” method of achieving this would include “the use of effective content recognition technologies.” However, when one considers the volume of content uploaded to the internet, it clear that such technologies would be the only cost effective method—YouTube alone, for example, receives 300,000 video uploads a day. (Rasty Turek, What YouTube Looks Like in a Day [Infographic], MEDIUM (Feb. 10, 2016).) Automated systems are notorious for making false positive decisions, taking down content that is either covered by exemptions to copyright laws (Hitler “Downfall” Parodies Removed from YouTube, CBS NEWS (Apr. 21, 2010), such as works “for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche” (Directive 2001/29/EC art. 5(k)), or works that are not purposeful infringements of Copyright Laws at all (Francis Whittaker, Fans Howl over Taking Down World Cup Twitter Posts for Copyright Issues, NBC NEWS (last updated Aug. 28, 2018).

Prepared by Ben Hills, Law Library intern, under the supervision of Clare Feikert-Ahalt, Senior Foreign Law Specialist.

]]>Germany: Federal Ministry of Finance Publishes Guidance on VAT Treatment of Virtual Currencieshttp://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/germany-federal-ministry-of-finance-publishes-guidance-on-vat-treatment-of-virtual-currencies/
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:40:00 +0000http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/?post_type=glm_article&p=13612(Mar. 13, 2018) On February 27, 2018, the German Federal Ministry of Finance published guidance on value-added-tax (VAT) treatment of bitcoin and other virtual currencies. It determined that transactions to exchange a traditional currency for bitcoin or other virtual currencies and vice versa constitute the taxable supply of other services for consideration, but fall under the exemption from VAT. It stated that bitcoin or other virtual currencies that are used simply as a means of payment are treated the same as traditional means of payment. Using bitcoin or other virtual currencies for no other purpose than as a means of payment is therefore not taxable. This guidance is in line with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision Hedqvist from October 22, 2015. (Bundesministerium der Finanzen (BMF) [Federal Ministry of Finance], BMF-Schreiben. Umsatzsteuerliche Behandlung von Bitcoin und anderen sog. virtuellen Währungen; EuGH-Urteil vom 22. Oktober 2015, C-264/14, Hedqvist [BMF-Letter. VAT Treatment of Bitcoin and Other So-Called Virtual Currencies; ECJ Decision of October, 2015, C-264/14, Hedqvist] (BMF Letter), Feb. 27, 2018, at 1& 2; Case C-264/14, Skatteverket v. David Hedqvist, ECLI:EU:C:2015:718.)

Virtual gaming money, meaning in-game currencies, particularly in online games, is not exempt, because it does not constitute a means of payment within the meaning of VAT law. (BMF letter, supra, at 3.)

The Federal Ministry of Finance also addressed several follow-up questions. It held that bitcoin “mining” is a nontaxable transaction. The Ministry of Finance noted that “miners” fulfill a service that is central to maintaining the bitcoin system. They make their processing power available to a mining pool, record transactions in a “block,” and subsequently add it to a “blockchain.” The Ministry of Finance stated that the transaction fee, which miners can receive from other users of the system, is paid on a voluntary basis and is not directly related to the services provided by the miners. It further added that receiving new bitcoin from the bitcoin system cannot be classified as payment for mining services because there is no exchange of services, as that requires an identifiable beneficiary. (Id.)

Digital Wallets

With regard to digital wallets, the Federal Ministry of Finance determined that if they are offered for a fee, they qualify as other services supplied by electronic means which are taxable and liable to taxation if the place of performance is in Germany. Digital wallets are saved on a computer, tablet, or smartphone and are used to store virtual currencies—for example, a smartphone app which is downloaded from an app store. (Id. at 3; Umsatzsteuergesetz [UStG] [Value Added Tax Act] [VAT Act], Feb. 21, 2005, BUNDESGESETZBLATT [BGBl.] [FEDERAL LAW GAZETTE] I at 386, § 3a ¶5, sentence 2, no. 3, § 3a ¶ 2, § 3a ¶5, sentence 1, as amended.)

Online Trading Platforms

Finally, the Ministry of Finance stated that operators of trading platforms who offer their websites as online trading platforms to purchase or trade bitcoin or other virtual currencies only enable the IT technical processing, which is not exempt from VAT. However, if the operators of such platforms buy and sell bitcoin and other virtual currencies as intermediaries in their own name, they may be exempt from VAT. (VAT Act, § 4, no. 8, letter b.)

]]>Netherlands: Mandatory Digital Litigation Extended to Asylum and Detention Caseshttp://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/netherlands-mandatory-digital-litigation-extended-to-asylum-and-detention-cases/
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:30:11 +0000http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/?post_type=glm_article&p=11591(June 15, 2017) According to the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, beginning on June 12, 2017, a new system of simplified, digital litigation will be used for all asylum and detention cases handled by all courts in the Netherlands and, as of September 1, the new system will be required for claims cases requiring legal representation in the courts in the province of Gelderland and elsewhere in central Netherlands. (Further Introduction of Mandatory Digital Litigation(May 4, 2017), Ministry of Security and Justice website.) Digital litigation in summons proceedings for civil cases before the Supreme Court commenced earlier, on March 1, 2017. (Id.)

The Decree is another step in the process of phasing in acts and decrees that are part of the country’s nationwide “Quality and Innovation in the Legal System” (Kwaliteit en Innovatie rechtspraak, or KEI) program. (Further Introduction of Mandatory Digital Litigation, supra; Programma Kwaliteit en Innovatie (KEI) van de Rechtspraak, RECHTSPRAAK (last visited June 7, 2017).) The KEI program of digitizing and simplifying court procedures is a means for the judiciary to modernize the handling of cases, enabling parties to communicate with the court registry online and initiate proceedings online. In the view of the Ministry of Justice and Security, “KEI is crucial for a fast and accessible legal system that is in keeping with the times.” (Further Introduction of Mandatory Digital Litigation, supra.)

The KEI-related legislation and decrees introduce a new, digital, basic procedure to replace both existing summons procedures and application procedures; the new digital procedure can be extended to include other procedural actions if necessary. (Chantal Blokker-Schipper, KEI: Digitization of the Justice System, STIBBEBLOG (Oct. 16, 2015).) The new single application procedure, the “process introduction,” unlike the original summons, “no longer requires the involvement of a bailiff” and thus there is the possibility of informal service. (Id.) Litigation using the digital system will be required of professional parties, such as lawyers and bailiffs. (Id.)

Under KEI, civil case procedures are also simplified, so that the basic procedure “consists of one written round, one round of oral arguments in court and finally the judgement,” with oral arguments as the core procedure early in the process, allowing early access by the judge to the parties involved. The judge will generally issue a decision within six weeks of the oral arguments. (Further Introduction of Mandatory Digital Litigation, supra.) For complex cases, “judges can supplement the basic procedure with an additional written or oral round,” giving the judge “more influence over the course of the procedure, allowing them to better respond to the needs of the litigants on a case-by-case basis.” (Id.) KEI also introduces additional legal deadlines for both parties and the courts to perform specific procedural actions and tightens existing deadlines. (Blokker-Schipper, supra.)

KEI Rollout

Implementation of KEI is to occur in five phases in a defined timeline. (Peggy Hulsbergen Henning-Awater & Chantal Blokker-Schipper, The Start of KEI: Introduction of Digital Litigation, STIBBEBLOG (Dec. 12, 2066).) Initially, a six-month adjustment period was agreed upon to enable legal professionals to familiarize themselves with the changes introduced by KEI, with implementation of the legislation to begin on February 1, 2017; however, the judiciary and the Dutch Bar Association agreed to take at least two extra months and thus begin the mandatory phase of digital litigation no earlier than April 1, 2017. (Id.)

The five phases (with the time frame for rollout, with dates adjusted for the two-month delay), are:

first instance procedures with mandatory legal representation: no earlier than June 1, 2017, starting with a pilot in the courts of Gelderland and central Netherlands; introducing mandatory digital litigation nationwide five months later, no earlier than November 2017; and with the Supreme Court’s digital platform to begin April 1, 2017 (it began March 1, as was indicated above);

claims on appeal: no earlier than November 2017, beginning with a pilot at one court and mandatory digital litigation introduced nationwide in all appeal courts in April 2018;

claims without mandatory legal presentation: a pilot at two courts planned for autumn 2018, with the nationwide rollout expected five months later, in March/April 2019 (digital litigation is only mandatory for legal entities and professional attorneys, not for people who litigate without representation);

application procedures: beginning in June 2019, first with a pilot project, then nationwide to commence in November 2019, whereupon combined procedures (claim and application in one) may be used;

preliminary relief proceedings: a pilot and then the nationwide rollout scheduled for June 2019. (Henning-Atwater & Blokker-Schipper, supra.)

The Decree and the KEI Program

As the title of the new decree indicates, it provides dates of entry into force for the relevant parts of five elements of the KEI program:

The Law of 13 July 2016 Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and the General Law of Administrative Law Relating to Simplification and Digitization of Procedural Law (Stb. 2016, 288),

the Law of 13 July 2016 Amending the Code of Civil Procedure Relating to the Simplification and Digitization of Procedural Law in Appeal and Cassation (Stb. 2016, 289),

The IBI Law defines the means of biometric identification as a photograph of a person’s facial features and the prints of his or her two pointing fingers, elements that constitute unique physiological human traits that can be digitally measured. (IBI Law, 5770-2009, § 2, SEFER HAHUKIM No. 2217 p. 256; IBI (Test Period) Decree, 5771-2011, § 33, KT 5771 No. 7025 p. 1287; Law Library of Congress, Biometric Data Retention for Passport Applicants and Holders: Israel (Mar. 2014).)

In accordance with the new IBI Regulations, as of June 1, 2017, facial recognition information and fingerprints from which biometric data was derived are required for the issuance of an identification document. While facial recognition data must be saved in a special biometric database, in the absence of the requester’s expressed consent, the fingerprint record will be erased after the identification document is issued. (IBI Regulations, § 6.)

Cyber security experts have reportedly expressed concerns regarding the safety of storage of biometric data. Inside threats, of the type exemplified by the leaking of classified information in the United States by Edward Snowden, are considered to be equal to the cyber security dangers posed by outside hackers. In response to such concerns, Databank Authority officials stated that the authority continuously guards against and addresses security threats. (Goichman, supra.)

]]>Netherlands: Legislation to Allow More Testing of Driverless Vehicleshttp://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/netherlands-legislation-to-allow-more-testing-of-driverless-vehicles/
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:30:34 +0000http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/?post_type=glm_article&p=10744(Mar. 29, 2017) On February 24, 2017, the Dutch Cabinet approved a bill that removes legal restrictions and makes it possible for manufacturers to carry out much more extensive testing of self-driving vehicles, without the physical presence of the driver in the vehicle. (Self-Driving Vehicles to Hit the Roads, Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Feb. 28, 2017); Sjoerd Hartholt, Vrij baan zelfrijdende auto door experimenteerwet [Public Road Self-Driving Vehicles by Virtue of Experimental Testing Law], BINNENLANDS BESTUUR (Feb. 27, 2017).) According to the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment,

Driverless-vehicles can mean a great deal in terms of mobility: they can drive more closely behind one another so that road capacity is better utilized. Moreover, since the vehicles can communicate with each other, traffic will flow more smoothly. And, traffic will also become safer: currently, some 90% of road accidents are caused by human error. In addition, self-driving vehicles use less fuel which make[s] them environmentally friendly and financially more attractive. (Self-Driving Vehicles to Hit the Road, supra.)

Features of the Experimental Use Law

The draft law will “enable companies to apply for a permit to conduct tests with driverless-vehicles on public roads, with a human being ready to take command via remote control.” (Id.) Since July 2015, automated vehicle testing has already been allowed through an exemption granted by the Netherlands Vehicle Authority (RDW), but it required that a human being always be in the vehicle to physically take over control if necessary. (Id.) The Cabinet had approved the large-scale testing of self-driving cars and trucks on public roads in January 2015, but the requisite legislative changes had to be made before such testing could be implemented. The first such test conducted in the Netherlands occurred in November 2016 on a highway outside Amsterdam. (Dutch Approve Driverless Cars for Public, Large-Scale Testing, CTVNEWS (Jan. 24, 2015).) According to the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, the RDW will assess in advance “the locations and conditions under which tests can be performed without the presence of a driver,” through “collaboration with experts, including the National Scientific Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands (SWOV), the relevant road authority and the police.” (Self-Driving Vehicles to Hit the Road, supra.)

Based on the testing done on public roads, the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment can determine whether further amendment of the legislation is necessary. This approach, the Ministry indicated, “implements the desire of the cabinet to produce future-proof legislation through which impediments to innovation are removed in a timely fashion.” (Id.)

Possible Specifics of Exemptions to Be Added to Road Traffic Act

The draft Law Governing the Experimental Use of Self-Driving Vehicles (Experimenteerwet zelfrijdende auto), according to a text made available on the Internet last year, amends the Road Traffic Act by adding two new subsections to article 149a of the Act that expand on the exemption from the Act’s provisions and those of other acts insofar as they have to do with a driver or registration number of the owner of a vehicle. The new subsections allow an exemption “to the extent necessary to conduct experiments with automated systems in vehicles”; however, the Act’s provisions on supervision, enforcement, and criminal responsibility would still apply. (Experimenteerwet zelfrijdende auto [Law Governing the Experimental Use of Self-Driving Vehicles] OVERHEID.NL (last visited Mar. 23, 2017) (click on pdf icon near “Draft for Internet Consultation” to view text in English; the consultation was conducted from July 7, 2016 to Sept. 1, 2016); Wegenverkeerswet 1994 [Road Traffic Act 1994] (Apr. 21, 1994, as last amended effective Mar. 15, 2017).)

Under a proposed new article 149aa of the Road Traffic Act, the exemption for experimental testing within the meaning of article 149a is to stipulate:

a. The purpose of the experiment,

b. The roads or road sections on which the experiment will be carried out,

c. The period of time for which the exemption shall apply,

d. The rules referred to in Article 149a, subsection three, from which there may be derogation and, to the extent relevant, the conditions on which derogations shall be allowed,

e. The safety measures that shall be taken in order to conduct the experiment with a view to the interests referred to in Article 2, subsection one [to ensure safety on the road; to protect road users and passengers; to maintain the road and guarantee its usability; to ensure, insofar as possible, freedom of movement];

e.[sic] Control of the positioning, device and method, as well as supervising independent administrative bodies which perform tasks in the field of this law.

f. How the experiment shall be monitored and evaluated by the Netherlands Vehicle Authority (RDW),

g. That use of the exemption shall be terminated if safety is jeopardised as a result or partly as a result of the experiment. (Id. § B, new art. 149aa.)

Among other measures, the draft law also states that an exemption for the experiments to test automated vehicles will require the permission of the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment. (Id. § B, new art. 149aa ¶ 2.) The Minister may decide to revoke the exemption if, in his/her opinion, “road safety is in jeopardy as a result or partly as a result of the experiment.” (Id. § B, new art. 149aa ¶ 3.) The RDW will submit a report on its evaluation of the testing to the Minister. (Id. § B, new art. 149aa ¶ 4.) The draft law also provides for rules on the provision of documents and data by the applicant when applying for an exemption to be prescribed by ministerial order. (Id. § C, new art. 150(3).)

Developments in the European Union

In 2016, at the initiative of the Netherlands, the transport ministers of the 28 European Union Member States signed the Declaration of Amsterdam on Cooperation in the Field of Connected and Automated Driving (Declaration). (Self-Driving Vehicles to Hit the Road, supra; Declaration of Amsterdam (Apr. 4, 2016), The Netherlands EU Presidency 2016 website (click on download link to view text).) One of the objectives of the agreement is “to work towards a coherent European framework for the deployment of interoperable connected and automated driving, which should be available, if possible, by 2019 … .” (Declaration, art. I(a).)

In February 2017, the Netherlands and other EU Member States reached agreements to establish, “as quickly as possible, the large-scale testing of self-driving vehicles,” including, among other tests, “truck platooning and vehicles that communicate data to one another in order to drive on automatic pilot.” (Self-Driving Vehicles to Hit the Road, supra.) It is expected that the first tests will occur at the end of 2017 or early in 2018. (Id.) The various countries and manufacturers involved also concurred that in 2019 it should be possible for self-driving vehicles to cross borders. (Id.; see also Clare Feikert-Ahalt, Great Britain: Technology Bill Introduced to Regulate Driverless Cars, Increase Penalties for Misuse of Lasers, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR (Mar. 21, 2017).)

]]>Great Britain: Technology Bill Introduced to Regulate Driverless Cars, Increase Penalties for Misuse of Lasershttp://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/great-britain-technology-bill-introduced-to-regulate-driverless-cars-increase-penalties-for-misuse-of-lasers/
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:30:45 +0000http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/?post_type=glm_article&p=10662(Mar. 21, 2017) The Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2017 was recently introduced in the British Parliament. The aim of the bill is to modernize transportation policies and laws in the United Kingdom. The bill addresses the misuse of lasers, the liability of insurers of automated vehicles, the infrastructure to support electric vehicles, and air traffic control regulations. The bill will also open up the market for road-vehicle testing, which the vehicle owner is responsible for having an authorized tester perform annually, and implement a cap on the cost of these services. (Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2017, Bill No. 143, United Kingdom Parliament website.)

Penalties for Misuse of Lasers

One of the more publicized parts of the bill is the increase in the penalties for the offense of shining a laser at the operator of any mode of transportation. The current law only applies to lasers being pointed at aircraft pilots; there were 1,258 reported incidents in Great Britain of lasers being directed into the cockpits of planes during 2016. The current offense requires the police to prove that the alleged culprit endangered an aircraft, which has been difficult for the police to do. The new law will create a strict liability offense, meaning that police only have to prove that the alleged offender directed or shone a laser beam at a vehicle in a manner that dazzled or distracted the person in control of the vehicle. The bill will also extend the offense to cover all types of vehicles and vessels, is broadly defined in the Bill as “any thing used for travel by land, water or air.” (Id. section 22(8); Laser Incidents Reported to the UK CAA 2016, Civil Aviation Authority website (last visited Mar. 1, 2016).)

Automated Vehicle Insurance

To keep the law up to date with technological developments, part 1 of the bill extends compulsory motor insurance to cover automated vehicles when they are operated in automated mode. This means that the victims of an accident that is caused by a vehicle in automated mode are covered by the compulsory insurance, which will obligate the insurer to pay compensation to the victim of the accident, as well as to cover the driver who activated the automation. The insurer may then recover costs from the liable party under the existing common law and product law provisions. Exemptions to this rule would apply if the driver using the automated system made any changes to the system or failed to install any required updates. Whether a car is considered to fall within the provisions of this bill will be determined by the Department of Transportation. (Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2017, supra; Explanatory Notes, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, ¶ 14, United Kingdom Parliament website (last visited Feb. 28, 2017); New Measures Set Out Autonomous Vehicle Insurance and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (Feb. 22, 2017), GOV.UK.)

Other Measures

To help the government achieve the target of zero emission vehicles by 2050, the bill requires gas stations and large retailers to provide electric power charging points that meet certain specifications to ensure compatibility and protection from hackers and to publish the details of the location, prices, and hours. (Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2017, Part 2.)

The bill will also update the licensing framework for air traffic control regulations to take into account the demand on the UK’s airports, increase resilience and aim to improve safety, and extend insolvency protection for package vacations to cover the newer ways that these vacations are purchased. (Id. Part 3.)

]]>The Netherlands: Digitization of Legal Systemhttp://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/the-netherlands-digitization-of-legal-system/
Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:00:37 +0000http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/?post_type=glm_article&p=8036(July 29, 2016) On July 12, 2016, the Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer) adopted four pieces of legislation that will implement the digitization of the legal system in the Netherlands. The new provisions will be implemented in phases, beginning in early 2017. (Senate Votes in Favour of Digitisation of Legal System, Ministry of Security and Justice website (July 12, 2016); KEI, Eerste Kamer website (last visited July 27, 2016) (in Dutch) (has links to each item of legislation).) The legislation establishes the Quality and Innovation in the Legal System Program (“KEI programme”), a collaborative undertaking of the Ministry of Security and Justice and the judiciary aimed at both digitizing and simplifying civil and administrative proceedings and at creating “a more accessible legal system, a system that can work faster and [be] better able to provide custom solutions.” (Senate Votes in Favour of Digitisation of Legal System, supra.)

Under the new system, litigants can submit civil and administrative case procedural documents, such as divorce petitions, payment dispute documents, or permit dispute documents, in digital form for assessment by the court. (Id.) The legislation furthers transparency of proceedings by enabling litigants to access a digital file (Mijn Zaak) that allows them to follow all the steps in the process. (Id.) It is expected that lawyers, who often still communicate by fax, according to the Ministry of Security and Justice, will benefit from digital communication with the court. Citizens involved in lawsuits who do not have lawyers will still be able, however, to conduct proceedings in paper format. (Id.)

In regard to simplification of civil procedures, the basic proceedings will be “one written round and one oral hearing before the court, followed by a judgment,” with the oral hearing occurring early in the process, so that the judge meets with the parties at an early stage to obtain more information, hear witnesses, and so on. (Id.) A judgment will typically be rendered within six weeks after the oral hearing, but the judge will be able to supplement the basic proceedings in complicated cases with an additional written or oral round. (Id.)

The Law generally prohibits “human reproductive cloning” (HRC) unless authorization for it is granted by the Minister of Health based on the determination that the procedure would not harm human dignity and with the recommendation of the Superior Helsinki Committee appointed in accordance with the Public Health (Medical Experiments in Human) Regulations, 5741-1980. The prohibition on human cloning is periodically extended. The Amendment Law extends the prohibited period until May 23, 2020. (Amendment Law, § 2.)

The Amendment Law further amends the definition of HRC, previously defined by the Law as either:

the creation of an embryo by the transfer of a human cell into an egg or a fertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed (in this Law a cloned embryo), for the purpose of creating a person who is identical from a genetic chromosomal [standpoint] to another person or embryo, living or dead;

the insertion of a cloned embryo into a uterus or the body of a woman or into a[nother] uterus or into another body. (Prohibition on Genetic Intervention (Human Cloning and Genetic Change in Reproductive Cells) (Amendment) § 2, SH 5764 No. 1934 p. 340.)

Instead of describing specific techniques for the purpose of defining HRC, the Amendment Law provides a general definition of HRC as simply “the creation of a human embryo that is identical to another person or embryo, either living or dead” and its insertion into a woman or another being, as previously provided. (Amendment Law § 1).

According to explanatory notes for the draft version of the Amendment Law, the change in the definition of HRC was necessitated by technological developments that created additional methods of human cloning aside from the transfer and insertion of a nucleus. The general definition was thus intended to include any possible future method of human cloning. This general definition, according to the explanatory notes, is in line with section (b) of the 2005 United Nations resolution recommending that requires states to prohibit all methods of human cloning. (Explanatory Notes, Draft Bill on Genetic Intervention (Human Cloning and Genetic Change in Reproductive Cells) (Amendment No. 3) 5776- 2016, Government Bill No. 1039 (Mar. 28, 2016), Knesset website; United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning (adopted by the General Assembly on Mar. 8, 2005), UNDOC.)

The continued temporary extension of application of the Law, according to the explanatory notes, reflects the need to keep following and reexamining various aspects of HRC, considering technological advancements in this area and the possible uses of cloning in research on and prevention of serious diseases, as well as in providing “gene therapy as an alternative to implantation of cells, stem cells, and body parts.” (Explanatory Notes, supra.)

]]>Moldova: Tax Incentives for IT Parkshttp://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/moldova-tax-incentives-for-it-parks/
Tue, 04 Aug 2015 16:00:00 +0000http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/moldova-tax-incentives-for-it-parks/(Aug. 4, 2015) It was reported on August 3, 2015, that the Parliament of Moldova had approved draft legislation on tax incentives for information technology parks. (Vasile Foltea, Moldova: Tax Incentives Granted to IT Parks, TAX NEWS SERVICE (Aug.3, 2015), International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation online subscription database.) The draft law provides that the IT parks are to be established for a period of up to ten years and may engage in customer-oriented, game, and other forms of software development; IT management; and “database management, web pages management and other related activities.” (Id.)

The tax incentives for companies that locate in the IT parks include:

a unified tax of 7% on income from sales (with the tax to include corporate income tax, personal income tax, social security, and health care contributions payable by both employers and employees, local taxes, property tax, and road fees); and

an exemption from customs duties and value-added tax for imported IT hardware needed to conduct business activities. (Id.)

A sunset provision in the draft legislation provides that companies in IT parks may continue to conduct business under previously applicable rules “in cases where newly adopted laws amend or cancel the unified tax,” with the period covered by the sunset clause to be “the lesser of 7 years or the period of the IT park’s operation.” (Id.; see alsoProiectul legii cu privire la parcurile din industria tehnologiei informatiei [Draft Law on Information Technology Industrial Parks], Parliament of the Republic of Moldova website (May 5, 2015).)